I think we have to remember that the ruling was given late at night after a long day. It may have not been expressed in the best possible way.
I think when we review the judgment we need to see the complete picture not just the final table but all the other items that occurred that day.
Now was it the correct call to DC the player I am not sure. Should have it been done earlier if they where gone do it…not sure. Should have Dennis taken Winter Festive out of his deck. HELL NO
Twn2dn said:
This line of conversation concerns me as it begins to sound a bit like that "who is Penfold" thread. I think it's really important to take a moment and reflect on what we hope to accomplish by posting on these forums. My personal hope is that through dialogue we will discover the reason for the disqualification, or at the very least clarify what the exact rules are so that competitors do not unintentionally violate them.
The line of "personal attacks" against the DC meta (and Erick specifically) concern me greatly for several reasons. First, I would point out that the burden in this case is not on the disqualified players to prove their innocence, but on FFG to prove their guilt. At least, that is the tradition of western democracies, and FFG is headquartered in such a place. But since this isn't a democratic process, and TO's can disqualify someone for any reason without justification, the analogy of a democracy is probably a bit far fetched…the truth is it's more like a benevolent dictatorship. (I'm not saying that's bad, but just pointing out the obvious so everyone is on the same page.) All that said, it's somewhat unrealistic to assume that all players involved have access to a computer while traveling AND the time to post online. If the melee went until 3am, I think it more than understandable that players spend the "free time" they have resting rather than defending themselves from online personal attacks.
Second, these are people, and grouping all people together as a mass of "other" is what leads to bias, hatred and unfounded contempt. Several players have noted that even if Dennis and Erick in theory colluded, Rick was also disqualified. But more to the point, I know most of the DC players, and those I know are very generous, friendly people. I have traveled to their events, slept on their couches, consumed their food (free of charge) and swapped stories into the evening. A couple of them are young dads, and as an expecting father, I've received advice. The reason I play AGOT is for the people, and after more than few years of knowing these guys, I can say that I haven't been disappointed.
Third, my personal opinion is that these specific personal attacks are unfounded. That these players would inevitably cheat because they have the same decks, there's precedent for collusion, etc. confuses me. After following the past three years closely, I would argue that if one reviews past precedent, the DC meta will do everything within the legal limits of the game to optimize the team's odds at winning. They are a close-knit meta, and approach competition as a community, a team. When collusion wasn't restricted by the rules, they openly colluded. Since collusion is now prohibited, they work together before the tournament to help each other with deckbuilding. Though they take this process to the extreme, I think it extremely problematic to condemn them for helping each other improve their decks. If you draw any conclusion from the past, why wouldn't it be that the DC meta "games" the system…in cases where there are "vulnerabilities" in the rules, the meta identifies those vulnerabilities and uses them to their advantage. To me, that is a sign of a good strategist, not a morally questionable person. It saddens me that some people on these forums would assume the worst in people they don't know.
Wow. I got back from being out of town and finally got to read all the threads. I only heard the news from a text before.
And very sad news to say the least. It would be interesting to hear if FFG indeed had given warnings to any of the final players throughout the day, but I think it unlikely. However, I hope FFG does have a solid reasoning, no matter how much the prerogative lies with the TO to DQ, since they'll likely be opening up Pandora's Box of rules dilemmas.
Also, thanks Twn2dn for the kind words above. I think your observations are probably pretty good regarding our meta, and even your perspective on past controversies. I've expressed before that I'm also saddened by the "reputation" of the meta based on a few other's opinions and probably misconceived and preconceived notions. But I also know that it's easy to find justification to your own perspective if you're looking for it. We do it all the time as human beings.
I suspect in the end that the problem wasn't
colluding
The sudden and unexpected guidance of the TO happened at Gencon as well when some tables were told to quit on the spot. I think that player warnings should be more liberally employed. (And perhaps FFG should invest in a portable PA system so that players can hear time warnings and announcements can be heard.)
Twn2dn said:
KhalBrogo said:
I was watching it live on and off while doing other stuff but throughout the entire game I definitely got the general sense that the DC guys were definitely planning on making Maekar last place and for the rest of the game they were trying to figure out who would get 1st 2nd and 3rd.
Just curious, was your impression that Rick was going out of his way to make maekar 4th as well, or was he simply "playing the game of thrones" and shooting for first?
It was my impression that Maekar's fate was sealed in last place before the game started by the 3 other players.
Let me ask this… Does anyone think that during the game there was nothing that the DC guys did wrong as in they cannot possibly see from the TO's standpoint that what they did was wrong or questionable even to the TO's discretion?
If so please explain to me why everyone in livestream chat was behind FFG's position on the issue - in fact the livestream chat may have been further evidence for them to support their decision - the chat in general had an overtly negative and vocal reaction to what was going on during the game.. I consider myself impartial having no prior relations with any of the players. I am not here to start a fight. I am merely here to get a better general understanding of the issues and arguments in favor or against the decision to DQ the DC players. I am a lawyer and live for good arguments.
KhalBrogo said:
Twn2dn said:
KhalBrogo said:
I was watching it live on and off while doing other stuff but throughout the entire game I definitely got the general sense that the DC guys were definitely planning on making Maekar last place and for the rest of the game they were trying to figure out who would get 1st 2nd and 3rd.
Just curious, was your impression that Rick was going out of his way to make maekar 4th as well, or was he simply "playing the game of thrones" and shooting for first?
It was my impression that Maekar's fate was sealed in last place before the game started by the 3 other players.
Let me ask this… Does anyone think that during the game there was nothing that the DC guys did wrong as in they cannot possibly see from the TO's standpoint that what they did was wrong or questionable even to the TO's discretion?
If so please explain to me why everyone in livestream chat was behind FFG's position on the issue - in fact the livestream chat may have been further evidence for them to support their decision - the chat in general had an overtly negative and vocal reaction to what was going on during the game.. I consider myself impartial having no prior relations with any of the players. I am not here to start a fight. I am merely here to get a better general understanding of the issues and arguments in favor or against the decision to DQ the DC players. I am a lawyer and live for good arguments.
If you live for good arguments, then I suggest you re-read Twn2dn's posts since they contain many good and well articulated arguments.
Regarding your sense that everyone else decided Maekar would be 4th before the round started, you said earlier that you were only partially watching the game while doing other things. In the first couple rounds, everyone who was standing around watching thought that Maekar had a chance because Dennis and Rick were focusing their control on Erick. They did this because Erick didn't have a hellholt engineer, and he did have a Red Viper who they both knew flat out wins games. At the same time, those of us watching knew that if Maekar got his dragons off, they would grab power quickly and pull off strong effects to reduce their control eating engineers and scourges. In fact, Maekar did get his dragons off once against Rick. That made him a big target.
In the last round he was easily within striking distance of 1st place. He had 3 dragons and Khal Drogo on the table, all with stealth and 2 power challenges. First challenge throw in all 3 dragons. Use the locations that give renown and stand when you win to Rhaegal. On that 1 challenge alone he gets 1 uo, 1 renown, 1 claim, and 3 (1 for each dragon) from Rheagal. At that point he only needs 1 more power with 2 stealth characters standing. Dennis and Erick each had 3 characters, 2 of whom I believe had power icons. Plus, the previous challenge Drogon could have killed any character except for the red viper.
Someone said shadows and spiders 3 turns was evidence of collusion in itself. Just because all 3 players had it in their plot deck as control decks is not evidence of collusion. It is perhaps the strongest control plot in melee because it can easily shut down both Stark Siege and Targ Heir decks when they set out to grab power quickly. He was running Targ Heir. At no point did they discuss, "who is playing Shadows and Spiders this turn to keep the French guy out." It happened that they all came up on different rounds.
Lastly, if 3 control decks play against 1 rush, how is it not in the best interests of every control player to keep the rush player down? As FFG has defined "collusion" it is predetermining matches before the game and not acting in your own best interest. I ask you to tell me what any player should have done differently to act in their own best interest? After seeing in game what the dragons would do to their boards, it was in all of their interests to keep them from going off. Any cooperation to stop that happened in game, as clearly evidenced by the early lack of focus on Maekar.
Yes, there was long deliberation on Dennis' final challenge phase. Since Erick took him up on the deal Maekar refused of 2nd for letting him get 1st, Dennis felt obligated to live up to his end and not be on tape backstabbing his friend for future melee tournaments. In this game, if you get a reputation for not honoring your deals, people will not make deals with you again in future tournaments. Erick was planning to backstab Dennis and get to 15 power. Rick saw this and scourged his Viper. With the late hour of nearly 3am (4am on the east coast) and no dinner for Dennis he kept saying he thought they were missing something and going back through everything. That did drag the game out, but it's untimed and a result more of slow thinking from the late hour than trying to stall out an untimed game.
For those who think there really was collusion at the final table, please tell me what any of the 3 players should have done differently to be in their best interest. They were all playing to win bargaining their control to slowly get the power they needed hoping for the chance to backstab for the win. In that game no one was going to rush to the win, not even the red viper. There was simply too much control for a rush to victory by any player. Seeing no action that was outside the best interest of the players involved, I don't see either anything they did wrong or the reason for a DQ.
AGoT DC Meta said:
It would be interesting to hear if FFG indeed had given warnings to any of the final players throughout the day, but I think it unlikely.
FFG did issue warnings throughout the day including after the first round in front of many witnesses.
They pulled one person aside for a talk round two and asked him to talk with the rest of the meta as well.
darknoj said:
They pulled one person aside for a talk round two and asked him to talk with the rest of the meta as well.
being one of the warned, i can confirm this.
HoyaLawya said:
KhalBrogo said:
Twn2dn said:
KhalBrogo said:
I was watching it live on and off while doing other stuff but throughout the entire game I definitely got the general sense that the DC guys were definitely planning on making Maekar last place and for the rest of the game they were trying to figure out who would get 1st 2nd and 3rd.
Just curious, was your impression that Rick was going out of his way to make maekar 4th as well, or was he simply "playing the game of thrones" and shooting for first?
It was my impression that Maekar's fate was sealed in last place before the game started by the 3 other players.
Let me ask this… Does anyone think that during the game there was nothing that the DC guys did wrong as in they cannot possibly see from the TO's standpoint that what they did was wrong or questionable even to the TO's discretion?
If so please explain to me why everyone in livestream chat was behind FFG's position on the issue - in fact the livestream chat may have been further evidence for them to support their decision - the chat in general had an overtly negative and vocal reaction to what was going on during the game.. I consider myself impartial having no prior relations with any of the players. I am not here to start a fight. I am merely here to get a better general understanding of the issues and arguments in favor or against the decision to DQ the DC players. I am a lawyer and live for good arguments.
If you live for good arguments, then I suggest you re-read Twn2dn's posts since they contain many good and well articulated arguments.
Regarding your sense that everyone else decided Maekar would be 4th before the round started, you said earlier that you were only partially watching the game while doing other things. In the first couple rounds, everyone who was standing around watching thought that Maekar had a chance because Dennis and Rick were focusing their control on Erick. They did this because Erick didn't have a hellholt engineer, and he did have a Red Viper who they both knew flat out wins games. At the same time, those of us watching knew that if Maekar got his dragons off, they would grab power quickly and pull off strong effects to reduce their control eating engineers and scourges. In fact, Maekar did get his dragons off once against Rick. That made him a big target.
In the last round he was easily within striking distance of 1st place. He had 3 dragons and Khal Drogo on the table, all with stealth and 2 power challenges. First challenge throw in all 3 dragons. Use the locations that give renown and stand when you win to Rhaegal. On that 1 challenge alone he gets 1 uo, 1 renown, 1 claim, and 3 (1 for each dragon) from Rheagal. At that point he only needs 1 more power with 2 stealth characters standing. Dennis and Erick each had 3 characters, 2 of whom I believe had power icons. Plus, the previous challenge Drogon could have killed any character except for the red viper.
Someone said shadows and spiders 3 turns was evidence of collusion in itself. Just because all 3 players had it in their plot deck as control decks is not evidence of collusion. It is perhaps the strongest control plot in melee because it can easily shut down both Stark Siege and Targ Heir decks when they set out to grab power quickly. He was running Targ Heir. At no point did they discuss, "who is playing Shadows and Spiders this turn to keep the French guy out." It happened that they all came up on different rounds.
Lastly, if 3 control decks play against 1 rush, how is it not in the best interests of every control player to keep the rush player down? As FFG has defined "collusion" it is predetermining matches before the game and not acting in your own best interest. I ask you to tell me what any player should have done differently to act in their own best interest? After seeing in game what the dragons would do to their boards, it was in all of their interests to keep them from going off. Any cooperation to stop that happened in game, as clearly evidenced by the early lack of focus on Maekar.
Yes, there was long deliberation on Dennis' final challenge phase. Since Erick took him up on the deal Maekar refused of 2nd for letting him get 1st, Dennis felt obligated to live up to his end and not be on tape backstabbing his friend for future melee tournaments. In this game, if you get a reputation for not honoring your deals, people will not make deals with you again in future tournaments. Erick was planning to backstab Dennis and get to 15 power. Rick saw this and scourged his Viper. With the late hour of nearly 3am (4am on the east coast) and no dinner for Dennis he kept saying he thought they were missing something and going back through everything. That did drag the game out, but it's untimed and a result more of slow thinking from the late hour than trying to stall out an untimed game.
For those who think there really was collusion at the final table, please tell me what any of the 3 players should have done differently to be in their best interest. They were all playing to win bargaining their control to slowly get the power they needed hoping for the chance to backstab for the win. In that game no one was going to rush to the win, not even the red viper. There was simply too much control for a rush to victory by any player. Seeing no action that was outside the best interest of the players involved, I don't see either anything they did wrong or the reason for a DQ.
There’s a feeling among some members of the DC meta, myself included, that the ruling of collusion at the final table had nothing to do with the actual gameplay at the table. Rather, FFG was just looking for an excuse to disqualify the players because of what had been happening throughout the day. The main complaint was that 10 of us played decks that worked extremely well together. And for the record, that’s all we did. There was no “I’ll take first, you take second” discussion.
Two copies of the same deck at a melee table will almost always positively impact each other. Rush decks tend to do better at tables with other rush decks and control decks tend to do better at tables with other control decks. More specific synergies will usually emerge, depending on the specific deck. For example, I remember playing against two copies of the same deck at Gen Con. The deck ran Narrow Escape. Having both decks at the table meant that there was a greater chance of somebody having a Narrow Escape when I played Valar, to the benefit of both players.
With the icon removal deck, the interaction was much bigger than normal. It’s not the fault of the players. It’s a competitive tournament. Players shouldn’t be punished for doing too good of a job at deckbuilding. The design team is ultimately responsible for creating balanced cards that do not create a negative play experience for anyone. In this case, a card slipped through the cracks. If you didn’t have a good time in the Melee tournament, that’s why. We never could have done what we did otherwise.
Having gone through the experience of playing the deck, I’m not sure what I would have done differently. I actually would have preferred to play a “real” melee tournament. I enjoy the format. I didn’t find the combo very fun to play. I’d imagine it was even less fun to play against. Still, I knew the deck was out there and it was better to play it than get owned by it. Hopefully, there just won’t be any broken cards available at the time of the next tournament.
Supposedly, the decision at the final table had nothing do with the decision to all play the same deck, as that decision did not violate any rules. The players were disqualified for “locking out” the other player at the table. The thing is, I know that FFG received some complaints about the deck, and it’s hard to imagine they weren’t influenced by those complaints. (What other explanation is there for the fact the Rick was included in the punishment?) Really, it’s not surprising that they managed to find a weak argument for collusion, given that they were looking for one. Almost anything could be considered collusion in Melee. If what we saw at the final table is the going to be the standard for what constitutes collusion, then a lot more people are going to be disqualified for colluding.
Ultimately, FFG found a way to handle the whole thing in a way that no one would be happy. Everyone still had to play against the deck. Three players were forced to play a three hour final table from which they were inevitably going to be disqualified. Dennis was allowed to think that he was going to win the Melee only to have that taken away from him at the last minute. The wrong person won the melee. The wrong person won the overall. And we’re all left to wonder if every melee tournament will now be decided by the judges rather than the players.
Ironically, I benefited from the decision. The disqualifications meant that I finished second in melee. I was playing the same deck as the three people at the final table. They were disqualified because they were more successful with the deck than I was. If I’d managed to beat Erick at our semi-final table, I would have been the one who was disqualified, and he would have been the one to move up in the standings. If Erick had just played a little worse, he would be the overall champion.
Melee is not a viable tournament format.
Yeap, because in Melee knowing meta and getting to have second/first place at each table goes hand in hand with knowing other decks. And which deck will you know better, some random guy's who you never saw before or your best friend's? And if your friend happens to have a deck you can profit mutually from, you would probably build a deck with that interaction built-in just in case you meet that specific deck at your table (same way as people always include Summoning Season in their decks and no one calls that collusion when two players agree to show Summoning season same plot with mutual double search)
IMHO, it's not that different from people running 3 copies of Dissension in a deck when they expect Targ Burn to be a strong contender. In both cases you benefit from getting extra knowledge about potential decks at the tournament.
HoyaLawya said:
For those who think there really was collusion at the final table, please tell me what any of the 3 players should have done differently to be in their best interest.
Hired an acting coach
We've all been talking about this for 3 years now, and everyone knows it. So now we're all tired of waiting for it to fix itself and it's out in the open. Let's all pretend to be shocked and outraged.
Well this discussion is interesting.
One question to ask here. Had FFG NOT DQ'd the 3 players they did, would the community be more angry or less angry? I would imagine more.
I also am more inclined to go to an FFG event now just because they are actually TRYING to maintain the competitive integrity of the game. Whether or not their method of doing so is currently terrible, the spirit of it is there. The assumption I am making is that they will get better at making these kinds of calls in the future and a debacle like this will be less likely as time goes on. NFL referees don't start in the NFL. Ktom didn't know any rules of this game at one point in time. Give FFG time to get the hand of this down and it'll probably be good for the game. I agree that this ruling is ALL over the place. I don't know whether or not the ruling was correct. I DO know that them doing this makes it so that everyone in the future has to be aware that not trying to win for yourself is unacceptable.
You are expected to play to win for yourself and yourself only.
Making a deal for placement is unacceptable.
THOSE are the biggest take aways for me. Is there anything else to be taken away from this?
mdc273 said:
You are expected to play to win for yourself and yourself only.
Making a deal for placement is unacceptable.
THOSE are the biggest take aways for me. Is there anything else to be taken away from this?
I am 100% sure that neither of those are the take-aways here. The two things you say are perfectly legal unless FFG decides that in their opinion you made the agreement before the game.
papalorax said:
mdc273 said:
You are expected to play to win for yourself and yourself only.
Making a deal for placement is unacceptable.
THOSE are the biggest take aways for me. Is there anything else to be taken away from this?
I am 100% sure that neither of those are the take-aways here. The two things you say are perfectly legal unless FFG decides that in their opinion you made the agreement before the game.
On top of that, how were any of the DC players at the final table not playing to win?
Since when has FFG said a deal for second when you can't take first unacceptable? I'm pretty sure that's a long time final round strategy when the table isn't going your way to ally with someone for second.
If both of those things are 100% legal, why did anyone at the final table get disqualified?
If all the DC players at the final table were playing purely for themselves to win, why did FFG even consider disqualifying them?
What are your take aways?
mdc273 said:
If both of those things are 100% legal, why did anyone at the final table get disqualified?
If all the DC players at the final table were playing purely for themselves to win, why did FFG even consider disqualifying them?
What are your take aways?
That's the question, isn't it? That's why I feel they should have let the game play out, and then make a decision. Or warn them in challenges with something clear and let it play out, and then make a decision. So many things could have happened in that last challenge. Erick could have screwed over Dennis for the win; Dennis could have sputtered on challenges and passed hoping to be able to defend.
Perhaps they were pissed that Erick locked down that final dragon - whether it was to ingratiate himself with Dennis for 2nd perhaps hoping to manipulate him for a win, or to dig the knife in, it's hard to tell although there are people convinced on both sides. FFG seemed to think that it was in an attempt to put Maekar 4th, when imho, he was just had a bad matchup with a big vulnerability against int heavy decks. And really their ruling is what matters.
My take-away is that FFG still hates combos that threaten their vision of a kumbaya tournament, and will now go so far as to decide a game to quash it. Instead they should make an effort to design a system that dis-incentivizes competitive collaboration, and not depend on socialization in the competitive-player meta to "soft-ban" OP combos and placement discussions.
mdc273 said:
If both of those things are 100% legal, why did anyone at the final table get disqualified?
If all the DC players at the final table were playing purely for themselves to win, why did FFG even consider disqualifying them?
What are your take aways?
Those are the questions we're asking. We don't know why they chose to DQ them. No one has yet to point to a decision made at the final table that was not in the best interest of the player making that decision. All we have is complaints about the meta bringing the same deck, which was very strong.
My take away is FFG is willing to issue arbitrary decisions at the final table. Unless the reasoning is clarified this take away isn't set in stone since the ruling was late at night. I see that FFG now considers some in game deals to be collusion if the deals are to the detriment of another player. This makes control decks unvaible in melee unless you want to risk getting DQ'd for working with another control player to lock the 1st player out from the win when he's in striking distance.
Seeing as how this is the first time it has ever happened, it doesnt really bother me. However, if future final tables play out in a similar manner containing non DC folks (like that would ever happen
), and those folks are not disqualified as well, then I will take this year's decision in a much different light. They have now set the precedent, here's hoping they stick with it, whatever 'it' is.
dcdennis said:
Seeing as how this is the first time it has ever happened, it doesnt really bother me. However, if future final tables play out in a similar manner containing non DC folks (like that would ever happen
), and those folks are not disqualified as well, then I will take this year's decision in a much different light. They have now set the precedent, here's hoping they stick with it, whatever 'it' is.
I do have one question. If I'm not mistaken, the Hellholt Engineer can potentially provide an unlimited combo if used by two players. Did this ever occur in any game? FFG has taken a dim view of unlimited combo's recently.
playgroundpsychotic said:
dcdennis said:
Seeing as how this is the first time it has ever happened, it doesnt really bother me. However, if future final tables play out in a similar manner containing non DC folks (like that would ever happen
), and those folks are not disqualified as well, then I will take this year's decision in a much different light. They have now set the precedent, here's hoping they stick with it, whatever 'it' is.
I do have one question. If I'm not mistaken, the Hellholt Engineer can potentially provide an unlimited combo if used by two players. Did this ever occur in any game? FFG has taken a dim view of unlimited combo's recently.
Ummm, this is pretty much the entire argument. When two friendly opponents each get out The Scourge and a Hellholt Engineer, it becomes an infinite combo to wipe the other two opponents entire icon spread
playgroundpsychotic said:
dcdennis said:
Seeing as how this is the first time it has ever happened, it doesnt really bother me. However, if future final tables play out in a similar manner containing non DC folks (like that would ever happen
), and those folks are not disqualified as well, then I will take this year's decision in a much different light. They have now set the precedent, here's hoping they stick with it, whatever 'it' is.
I do have one question. If I'm not mistaken, the Hellholt Engineer can potentially provide an unlimited combo if used by two players. Did this ever occur in any game? FFG has taken a dim view of unlimited combo's recently.
playgroundpsychotic said:
dcdennis said:
Seeing as how this is the first time it has ever happened, it doesnt really bother me. However, if future final tables play out in a similar manner containing non DC folks (like that would ever happen
), and those folks are not disqualified as well, then I will take this year's decision in a much different light. They have now set the precedent, here's hoping they stick with it, whatever 'it' is.
I do have one question. If I'm not mistaken, the Hellholt Engineer can potentially provide an unlimited combo if used by two players. Did this ever occur in any game? FFG has taken a dim view of unlimited combo's recently.
I know of two tables where it did. But Rick and I both had scourge and the engineer out early at the final table and we didn't abuse it. Otherwise the game would have been over right there.
playgroundpsychotic said:
dcdennis said:
Seeing as how this is the first time it has ever happened, it doesnt really bother me. However, if future final tables play out in a similar manner containing non DC folks (like that would ever happen
), and those folks are not disqualified as well, then I will take this year's decision in a much different light. They have now set the precedent, here's hoping they stick with it, whatever 'it' is.
I do have one question. If I'm not mistaken, the Hellholt Engineer can potentially provide an unlimited combo if used by two players. Did this ever occur in any game? FFG has taken a dim view of unlimited combo's recently.
Based on how the melee finals table played out, I would say the infinite combo was not a factor in the decision, since it wasn't used at the finals table to remove all icons from all opponents' characters AND Erick never had an Engineer in play (or am I misremembering?). The ruling seems to be in reaction to the normal use of control effects and a view that "too much" of the control (though not as a % of card effects, because that wasn't actually the case) was directed toward the Targ player, thereby "locking him out" of the game. I remain unclear how this "locking out" ruling was determined, but that was the reason given.
I believe Greg would agree that the only way to justify the disqualification would be to assume that a group of players who brought the same deck , despite knowledge it might result in an NPE combo if they happened to be paired at the same table, embodies an intent to collude . In other words, in-game justifications just aren't enough to explain what happened. Collusion as defined in the rules is all about premeditated intent irrespective of execution. The moment any of the DC players began using the combo, they should have all been disqualified regardless of whether or not everyone used the combo. I also think Greg would agree that, had FFG felt that bringing the same decks = collusion, FFG should have just disqualified all DC players during or ideally before the first round, rather than disqualifying some and not others only after they had reached the finals table and played for 3 hours. Greg, I believe I have accurately represented your views here, but if not, please correct me.
While I disagree with Greg's conclusion, his reasoning is logically consistent, unlike the myriad other explanations that involve alleged collusion of plots/triggered effects to "lock down" the opponent. As I pointed out in my original post, working together to reveal plot effects isn't illegal, so long as you don't name cards. Past precedent allows players to ask "want to help each other out this plot phase" or say "guys, Jeremy is going to win…we really need to hold him back this round." My interpretation of the finals round was that no illegal actions were taken, and that had these not been metamates, or had they not been playing the same deck, everything would have been fine.
dcdennis said:
dcdennis said:
I know of two tables where it did. But Rick and I both had scourge and the engineer out early at the final table and we didn't abuse it. Otherwise the game would have been over right there.
Actually you used it early to shut out Erick because he didn't have his Hellholt Engineer and couldn't get back at you and Rick, but you didn't focus much control on Mathieu (sp?). Those of us watching thought he could end up squeeking through a rush for the win. Then he had a big challenge and triggered his dragons, painting a big target on those dragons.